Ontario (Environment) v. Quinte-Eco Consultants Inc., 2008 ONCA 630

Date: 2008-09-15

Docket: C48740

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Before: Armstrong, Lang and Epstein JJ.A.

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Environment

Respondent

and

Quinte-Eco Consultants Inc. and Ronald Carter

Appellant

Counsel:

J. Bruce McMeekin for the appellant

Jerry G. Herlihy for the respondent

Heard: September 8, 2008

On appeal from the order of Justice Stephen J. Hunter of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated February 14, 2008, dismissing the appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice of the Peace D. Doelman of the Ontario Court of Justice on October 31, 2007.

Endorsement

[1] In sentencing the appellant, Ronald Carter, for breach of s. 184(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.19, the justice of the peace imposed fines as well as two years of probation. The probation order included a condition restricting the appellant’s ability to work in the environmental business. The justice of the peace did not impose a similar condition on the corporate offender in recognition that the corporation could continue to carry on business with the assistance of the appellant’s son, who was a professional engineer. The condition imposed on the appellant was upheld on appeal; however, the appeal judge reduced the term of probation to one year.

[2] In this court, the appellant submits that the condition does not address his rehabilitation and is a purely punitive condition that should be struck.

[3] In our view, Hunter J. did not err in upholding the condition of probation. The justice of the peace was entitled to impose such a condition pursuant to s. 72(3)(c) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, which specifically allows for conditions “appropriate to prevent similar unlawful conduct or to contribute to the rehabilitation of the defendant.”

[4] We see no error in principle or otherwise regarding inclusion of the condition as a term of probation. In imposing the condition, the justice of the peace noted the appellant as a “strong individual who sees things his way”, who expressed no remorse and who gave no indication that he would do things differently in the future. The appellant did not appear to the justice of the peace to appreciate the seriousness of his non-disclosure of data, which may have resulted in PCB’s affecting the Bay of Quinte.

[5] In light of these findings, the condition was both rehabilitative in nature and served the purpose of preventing similar unlawful conduct, even though it may have had a punitive consequence.

[6] Accordingly, we would dismiss the appeal except to take into account the effect of stays granted pending appeal. In that regard, the additional considerations in the probationary order are amended to read after “or otherwise” the date of May 2, 2009, which counsel advise achieves the appropriate result.

“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”

“S.E. Lang J.A.”

“G. Epstein J.A.”